Is anyone else wondering where the parking is? That must be one huge parking garage.

It looks like they are trying to cram as much into that amount of space. It doesn't look like a very well thought out plan.

It doesn't look like a very thorough site plane. The plan for phase 1 will construct a surface lot where the proposed garage is. Kyle Seale will then be extended North from Brandeis HS to the new soccer and track stadiums South of the on-property creek. It will not be extended all the way to 1604 where Kyle Seale continues North though.

I think the campus just released this site plan to get approval on Thursday. They hired a company earlier in the year to create a new masterplan for the 1604 campus, d/t campus, and athletics park. Those new plans haven't been finished yet.

I understand that this is a preliminary plan, but even a preliminary plan should have some kind of vision. This looks like it was done in "paint" by a administrative assistant. That statement may be a little harsh, I am sure when the new masterplan comes out, it will look much better.

I am not sold on the idea of having the future stadium at this site. I liked the old masterplan better, but that was before the University got this new plot of land.

Most of the support and fans will be alumni and local residents, not students. In that situation, the dome would be the best situation. An on campus stadium (or near campus in this case) is the best situation for the school once the program has developed, but I find it hard to believe that this site can contain all of the necessary facilities for an FBS program.

So is that stadium a practice stadium, or are they going to playing there. Are they still going to be playing in the Alamodome, or was the A-dome just a temporary thing.

The only part of that complex funded is a track & field, soccer stadium, and a roadway into the property from Hausman. The rest will be built as funding comes available. It could be 5 years... could be 50 years. I'm hoping we see a lot of support from the city and donors to make this a reality, but I'm sure that the football stadium will be one of the last things built. I bet we will be attending football games in the Alamdome for at least the next 10 years.

I think I read somewhere that the land the existing fields are on would become more student housing and other buildings.

When purchased Dr. Romo said the land may be used for athletics, housing, and new education buildings. East Campus (which will contain graduate level housing and classrooms around Lot 13 across from the Valero headquarters) has been delayed due to the recession, but is still the next direction for housing and educational buildings. I doubt this tract of land will be used for anything other than athletics facilities anytime soon. It could become home to additional office space such as Human Resources which rents space in the business park off Hausman (next to the FBI building).

UTSA Blvd ends at Babcock. Always has, always will. The street running through the College Park subdivision is UTSA Drive. I grew up on UTSA Drive and Foothills Court (the first street in the subdivision). There are already idiots tearing through that subdivision at dangerous speeds. No houses front Hausman. Let them race down Hausman all they want. They can widen Hausman. They can't widen UTSA Drive, unless they plan on ripping out people's driveways. I know the subdivision is suburban sprawl, and far be it for me to be a NIMBY, but there's plenty of other access to the property...

It looks like there wont be any access to the athletics complex property through the College Park subdivision. You've mentioned that your parents live there, and no one anticipated the growth of UTSA in facilities and students but I've always had a problem with neighborhood residents being upset that there is a university in their neighborhood, when the university was there first (not that you indicated this, but I'm taking this as an opportunity to step up on my soapbox for a bit). You'd be better versed about when construction occurred in the CP neighborhood than I would. I have a buddy who owns a house on Prairie Lace (I think that's the name) and it looks like it was built mid-late 1980's (at the earliest). It could be some homes pre-date the 1976 construction of the central UTSA campus. In that case, they or others have legitimate concerns about the university moving in and dramatically altering the makeup of the neighborhood, and might have chosen to purchase elsewhere had they knew what was on the horizon. Your folx might have no problem with the university as a neighbor. But I take issue with others who move into one of the newer neighborhoods that have sprouted up around the campus and busy themselves with complaints about the traffic, noise, people, etc. affiliated with the campus. It begs the question; WHY DID YOU BUY THERE? UTSA hasn't been hiding all this time. It's highly visible physically and culturally in San Antonio, and almost everyone here knows someone who attended it at one point or graduated from it. They had to know what they were in for, and if they didn't, it's their fault for not exercising due diligence. I've always checked out traffic patterns and flows near apartment complexes before I signed a lease. I marked the Ranch at Shavano Park (on 1604 between NW Military and Bitters) off my list of potentials when I realized there was no back access to the complex from NW Military and if coming from the west, I'd have to pass it and drive to Bitters Road, turn around and head back on the access road to get to the complex, additional 3 miles in total. I couldn't imagine doing that all the time, especially if I had to piss or was in a hurry. It's like people who buy a home on a creek because of the tranquility and then demand the taxpayers do something about flood control when the creek rises and their home floods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boquillas

...the UTSA car culture has been coddled long enough. ... The idiot kids living in Las Colinas and the Oaks and all the other complexes are still driving to school for crying out loud....

I did want to jump in on this point though and correct an inconsistency in your comment. In 2005 the university added a 'resident' parking permit, and limited on-campus residents with vehicles to the 'resident' permit. A 'resident' permit is only valid for parking in designated spots near the residential complexes, and prohibits residents from parking in all other lots (except at night when a student might not feel safe walking to the library or other area of campus.) This ended the practice of on-campus residents driving to a parking lot closer to class. And as residents, they are prohibited from purchasing a general parking permit.

Additionally, all students now pay a semesterly fee of $20 to fund the shuttle system that runs on-campus and circulates to apartments around campus (including Las Colinas). I always see many students riding these routes as it would certainly be faster to wait 15 minutes for the shuttle and get dropped off at the door of a building than it would be to drive to campus search for parking and walk to a building. If you have class during peak hours, the closest lot (Lot 5) for general parking is usually full, and you'd have to park in a remote lot and wait for that shuttle, making it a big waste of time to drive to and park on campus if you live in a complex with shuttle service. I also see a lot of students walking to/from their apartments (Las Colinas, Alpine Park, Maverick Creek, Chase Hill) when I'm stopped at the light at 1604 and Chase Hill Blvd. So it's no longer accurate to say students on or near campus still drive to campus for class. As noted above, those living on campus couldn't do so even if they wanted to because of the permit system.

Many who have a past familiarity with UTSA arent aware of how much it has grown, developed, matured and changed in the last decade and make statements based on dated personal knowledge. The most common misnomer is that it is 'just a commuter school'. That may have been the case circa 2000, but people are surprised when they learn how wrong their blanket statements are and how different the current campus environment is from years past:

1) Between 60% to 65% of students graduated from high schools outside Bexar county (i can dig up the data if you want, but I've spent too much time on this post already)- UTSA students are no longer the kid living at home with mom and dad getting some basics out of the way.

2) The increase isn't just students that were deferred enrollment to UT. There are about 1,500 of these students per class, but at the conclusion of the two-year deferment period, 2/3 of these academically strong students (who could have gotten into any other university in the state) decide to remain on and graduate from UTSA.

3) Most telling, UTSA has nearly caught up to it's flagship UT-Austin in percentage of on-campus residents, with almost 13% at UTSA and just over 16% at UT. The breakdown is UTSA with 28,533 enrolled, and 3,647 living on-campus, making it 12.8% residential. UT-Austin has 48,754 enrolled, with 7,847 living on-campus, making it 16.1% residential. See the THECB residential data at http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1722.PDF

Clearly, the area around the UT campus is more dense with housing than the area around UTSA, and a much larger percentage of UT students live within walking distance to the campus than at UTSA. But when people make the claim that UTSA is just/still a commuter school (commuter being students living off campus and traveling to the campus for class) it's simply no longer the case, especially when the percentage of on-campus residents is just 3% behind UT-Austin. I don't think anyone of good sense would accuse UT of being a commuter school.

Say the UTSA campus is architecturally unappealing, say it's easy to get into (although this is changing, albeit incrementally), say it's graduation rates aren't impressive (they have improved, significantly in the last few years), or say it doesn't fund research at the flagship level, but don't say it's a commuter school like this is 1996.

__________________
"We marched five leagues over a fine country with broad plains, the most beautiful in all of New Spain. We camped on the banks of an arroyo. This I called San Antonio de Padua, because we reached it on the day of his festival." - General Domingo Teran de los Rios, June 13, 1691, in a letter to the King of Spain on the occasion of the founding of San Antonio.

Not to change the subject too much off of UTSA, but at 29,000 students and 6671 beds, Texas State has a pretty substantial on campus student living population at 23%. Adding that to the abundance of close to campus apartments gives San Marcos a very dense student population. Texas A&M and Texas Tech also have very impressive on campus percentage rates.

Not to change the subject too much off of UTSA, but at 29,000 students and 6671 beds, Texas State has a pretty substantial on campus student living population at 23%. Adding that to the abundance of close to campus apartments gives San Marcos a very dense student population. Texas A&M and Texas Tech also have very impressive on campus percentage rates.

These are all small towns compared to San Antonio. No matter where you are you are close to the college in these towns. Schools like UTSA and U of H have a problem with on campus student population because you can live anywhere and still ride buses or drive to school. These towns are what you would call college towns.

Their dreams of starting a football program realized, UTSA officials have set their sights on another major objective — one that could be even tougher to achieve.

UTSA Associate Athletic Director Brad Parrott said the university has entered into preliminary discussions with the Northside Independent School District about the joint development and use of a new convocation center.

“We’re just trying to figure out how we might be able to get this done,” Parrott said. “It’s more of a concept, an idea. But they need it, and we need it. That’s why we’re in discussions.”...